1) What “oral defamation” is (and why “minor” status matters)

Oral defamation is the crime commonly called slander: defamatory statements spoken (not written) that tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt toward an identifiable person and are heard by at least one third person (publication).

Under Philippine law, the baseline framework for oral defamation is in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) on defamation:

Article 353 defines libel (the umbrella definition of defamation).
Article 358 penalizes oral defamation (slander).

A minor generally means a person below 18 years old under Philippine child-protection statutes. Being a minor does not create a separate “slander against minors” article in the RPC—but it can matter a lot in practice because:

the same spoken attack can be prosecuted as oral defamation and/or as child abuse / acts prejudicial to a child under special laws when the conduct degrades, humiliates, or emotionally harms a child; and
the setting (school, online broadcasts, authority figures) can trigger other legal consequences and aggravating circumstances.

2) The governing crime in the RPC: Article 358 (Oral Defamation)

2.1 Elements prosecutors typically must prove

While cases are fact-sensitive, an oral defamation prosecution generally turns on these core questions:

Defamatory imputation Were words spoken that impute a crime, vice, defect, or any act/condition that would naturally expose the child to ridicule, contempt, or loss of reputation?
Publication Were the words communicated to someone other than the minor (e.g., classmates, neighbors, a crowd, an audience)?
Identifiability Was the minor identifiable, either by name or by circumstances such that listeners understood who was being referred to?
Malice Defamation in the RPC is generally tied to malice. Malice can be inferred from the defamatory nature of the statement, but may be negated by defenses like privilege or good faith (discussed below).

2.2 “Grave” vs “Slight” oral defamation (the key penalty split)

Article 358 divides oral defamation into:

Grave (serious) oral defamation, and
Slight oral defamation.

The RPC does not list a rigid checklist; courts typically look at the totality of circumstances, including:

the exact words used (how insulting or damaging),
the context (public setting vs private dispute; repeated vs single utterance),
the relationship of the parties (adult vs child; teacher/authority vs student),
the presence of humiliating circumstances (e.g., in front of classmates),
the probable impact on the victim’s reputation and emotional well-being.

When the offended party is a minor, statements that sexualize, brand the child as criminal, or publicly humiliate the child in a school/community setting are more likely to be treated as serious—and may also implicate child-protection statutes.

2.3 Penalties under Article 358 (imprisonment / fine)

The penalties for oral defamation depend on whether it is grave or slight, using the RPC’s penalty classes:

Slight oral defamation Punishable by arresto menor (imprisonment of 1 to 30 days) or a fine (the statutory fine amounts in the RPC have been subject to legislative updating over time).
Grave oral defamation Punishable by a higher imprisonment range within the arresto mayor / prision correccional band (these are months to years, not mere days), and/or a fine depending on the case. For reference, the RPC’s relevant imprisonment classes are:
- arresto mayor: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
- prision correccional: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years

Important practical note on sentencing: even when the law states a range, actual sentencing can be affected by:

aggravating/mitigating circumstances under the RPC,
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (where applicable),
probation eligibility (often relevant for first-time offenders, depending on the final sentence).

3) When “oral defamation against a minor” can become a different (or additional) criminal case

Because minors are specially protected in Philippine law, some conduct that looks like “slander” may also be charged under special laws—sometimes with heavier penalties—if the act is framed as child abuse, psychological harm, or a condition prejudicial to the child’s development.

3.1 RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)

RA 7610 can apply when the spoken attack is part of conduct that degrades, demeans, or causes emotional/psychological suffering to a child, especially where an adult uses power, influence, or moral ascendancy (e.g., teacher, guardian, coach, employer, older authority figure).

A common litigation pattern is:

the same incident is alleged as oral defamation (RPC) and as an act prejudicial to the child / child abuse (RA 7610), depending on the facts and how the complaint is drafted and supported.

RA 7610 cases tend to focus less on classic “reputation” analysis and more on the child-protection lens: harm, exploitation, cruelty, humiliation, or conditions prejudicial to development.

3.2 School-based incidents: Anti-Bullying frameworks + criminal law

If the slander happens in a school context (student-to-student, teacher-to-student, or parent-to-student issues), it may trigger:

administrative and disciplinary mechanisms (school discipline; anti-bullying policies),
and criminal liability (RPC oral defamation, RA 7610 where applicable).

Administrative remedies don’t replace criminal liability; they run on separate tracks.

3.3 If the spoken statement is broadcast/recorded and distributed

Pure “oral defamation” is speech. But when spoken statements are:

recorded and then
published (posted, shared, uploaded, broadcast),

the legal characterization can shift toward written/recorded defamation concepts (e.g., libel-like publication mechanics), depending on how the defamatory material is ultimately disseminated. The “penalties for oral defamation” analysis remains relevant if the prosecution is anchored on Article 358, but evidence and charging decisions can change drastically when there is a durable recording.

4) Aggravating circumstances that often matter when the victim is a minor

The RPC allows penalty adjustments based on circumstances. In minor-victim scenarios, prosecutors often explore facts that can support aggravation, such as:

abuse of superiority (adult vs child power imbalance),
abuse of confidence or relationship (guardian/teacher/coach vs child),
public humiliation (done in a crowded place, classroom, school event),
dwelling (if it happens at the child’s home, depending on facts),
ignominy (acts that add disgrace beyond the basic insult, fact-specific).

Whether a court will appreciate a given circumstance depends tightly on the proof and context.

5) Who may file the case when the offended party is a minor

A minor generally acts through a parent or legal guardian for initiating complaints and participating in proceedings. Criminal cases for defamation-related offenses typically begin with a complaint-affidavit filed for inquest/preliminary investigation (depending on arrest circumstances), supported by:

affidavits of witnesses who heard the words,
any recordings, messages, or corroborating evidence,
proof identifying the minor as the target.

6) Evidence issues unique to oral defamation (especially involving children)

Oral defamation cases frequently rise or fall on credibility and corroboration:

Exact words matter. Courts often want clarity on what was actually said, not just a paraphrase.
Witnesses are key. Publication requires a third person who heard the words.
Context matters. A heated exchange can affect whether the imputation is viewed as slight or grave.
Child-witness handling. When the minor is a witness, courts may apply child-sensitive procedures under special rules for child witnesses and protective measures, depending on the case setup and the child’s role.

7) Defenses and limitations (what can defeat or reduce liability)

7.1 No publication / no third party

If the words were spoken only to the minor with no one else hearing, the criminal element of publication may fail (though other liabilities might still exist depending on conduct).

7.2 Not defamatory, or mere opinion/insult without imputing discredit

Not every rude remark becomes oral defamation. The issue is whether the statement, in context, tends to cause dishonor or discredit and is more than fleeting offensiveness.

7.3 Identity not established

If listeners could not reasonably identify the minor as the subject, the case weakens.

7.4 Privileged communications

Some statements are protected as:

absolutely privileged (e.g., statements in legislative proceedings; certain statements in judicial proceedings), or
qualifiedly privileged (good faith communications in performance of duty; fair and true reports; certain fair commentaries on matters of public interest).

Privilege is fact-intensive; abuse of privilege can revive liability.

7.5 Truth + good motives + justifiable ends (where applicable)

Under the RPC’s defamation framework, truth is not an automatic shield; it is generally tied to requirements such as good motives and justifiable ends, and the admissibility/weight of truth depends on the type of imputation and circumstances.

8) Civil liability: damages can be substantial even when jail time is minimal

A criminal conviction (or even sometimes a criminal filing paired with civil action) can expose the offender to:

moral damages (for humiliation, wounded feelings),
exemplary damages (where aggravating circumstances justify),
actual damages (rare in slander unless proven expenses/losses),
plus costs.

Where the victim is a minor, the narrative of psychological harm and public humiliation can be central to the civil dimension.

9) Prescription (time limits) can differ depending on “grave” vs “slight”

Prescription under the RPC depends on the penalty classification attached to the offense. Because slight and grave oral defamation carry different penalty levels, the time window for filing can differ significantly. The practical takeaway is that the classification decision can affect not only exposure but also whether a case is time-barred.

10) Common misconceptions in “oral defamation against minors” cases

“If it’s true, it’s not defamation.” Not automatically; truth is not a universal defense and is heavily conditioned in Philippine defamation law.
“If you didn’t name the child, there’s no case.” Identification can be circumstantial.
“It’s just a private matter.” Defamation is a public offense, but initiation and procedure often rely on an offended party’s complaint and witness participation.
“Online spoken insults are always ‘oral defamation.’” The moment speech is recorded and distributed, the analysis can shift toward publication mechanics beyond a one-time utterance.

11) Practical penalty exposure summary (Philippine context)

Baseline (RPC Article 358):

Slight oral defamation: up to 30 days jail (arresto menor) or fine.
Grave oral defamation: months to years range within arresto mayor / prision correccional territory, and/or fine; actual sentence depends on circumstances and sentencing rules.

Potentially heavier overlays when the victim is a minor:

RA 7610 exposure where the facts support child abuse / acts prejudicial to a child’s development, especially with adult authority, humiliation, or psychological harm.
Administrative/school consequences in school settings (separate from criminal penalties).

12) Bottom line

Philippine law does not create a standalone “oral defamation of a minor” offense with a unique penalty table. Instead, Article 358 supplies the core penalties (driven by grave vs slight), while the victim’s minor status can:

push the conduct toward a “grave” classification due to context and impact, and/or
support prosecution under child-protection statutes (notably RA 7610) when the spoken attack is part of degrading, harmful, or development-prejudicial treatment of a child.